Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, has written an excellent summary of the reasons that charter schools are not public schools. As she puts it, they are private schools that receive public funding. They are like private contractors who are working with a government contract; when they are sued in court, they claim they are not state actors, they are private contractors. That is, they plead that they can’t be held to the same laws as public schools because they are not public schools.
What makes public education advocates angry, she writes, is when charter schools claim “success” but play by different rules.
She uses the example of Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charters to show that her charters do not enroll the same proportions of children who are poor and children with disabilities as the neighborhood school. In addition, they don’t accept new students after a certain grade because they don’t want to ruin their “culture” by bringing in new students (this is called “backfilling”).
Public schools have public governance, with open meetings and financial transparency. Charter schools almost never do.
The differences between public schools and charter schools go well beyond issues of governance. One of the strengths of a true public school is its ethical and legal obligation to educate all. Public school systems enroll any student who comes into the district’s attendance zone from ages 5 to 21 — no matter their handicapping condition, lack of prior education, first language, or even disciplinary or criminal record. Not only will empty seats be filled at any grade, if there is a sudden influx of students, classes must be opened.
In contrast, charter schools control enrollment — in both direct and subtle ways. In 2013, journalist Stephanie Simon wrote a comprehensive report exposing the lengthy applications, tests, essays and other hurdles used by many charters schools to make sure they get the kind of student that they want.
Even when some charter chains, such as Aspire, Success Academy and KIPP, have simple applications and lottery entrance, student bodies are not necessarily representative of neighborhood schools.
Burris asks:
The Democratic National Convention is about to begin. Will the party show commitment to rein in the “Wild West” of charter schools, as new platform language suggests? Friends of public education will be watching.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Bernie has created space in the Democratic Party for the Network for Public Education to be heard. That Carol Burris will lead the way is a sign that the good guys may yet win this battle. Keep up the good work Carol!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Accountability means accountable to the People,
not accountable to some company’s accountants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carol, you nailed it! Thank you.
LikeLike
This article should be sent to the DNC and Hillary’s campaign. They need to understand the issues if they are to make informed decisions. It is misleading and somewhat fraudulent to present charters as public schools. Groups that want to destroy public education want to blur the lines between public and private so the low information members of the public will hardly notice that their public school has morphed into a charter. It will make it easier for these groups to gain access to public funds without resistance. It is a bait and switch unethical tactic common among those that want to profit from our children. Charters are not, and never will be, public schools.
LikeLike
The respect of the Democratic Party, for the middle class and poor, is reflected in its invitation to Bloomberg, to speak at the convention.
LikeLike
Carol’s article was sent to HRC’s campaign.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A petition of 100,000 signatures, in 30 days, attracts the attention of the White House and the promise of a reply. How many petition signatures does it take to get the FTC to investigate, false advertisements, claiming charter schools are public? And, if Ohio’s Republican, Attorney General ever tires of photo op’s in Pike County, maybe he could look into the issue?
Note to OSU’s John Glenn College of Public Affairs, why are you misleading Ohioans by using the false descriptive?
LikeLike
I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but yet again a reminder that Hillary is good friends with (and a beneficiary of) Eli Broad. When she made her little slip and sort of slightly criticized some charters, Broad demanded that she walk it back or he would retract funding. She did. The problem with Hillary’s campaign is not lack of knowledge, it’s a knowledge of where her bread is buttered.
LikeLike
That’s my primary objection to Hillary, period.
LikeLike
Well, the DNC and the GOP like charter schools. Follow the $$$$$$$$$. This reference to PUBLIC CHARTER Schools is just another example of Lakoff’s Reframing.
Both the DNC and the GOP insiders Profits big time and will continue to destroy public schools for the sake of their campaign contributions, plus those promoting this “LIE that charters are better than public schools” is that … a BIG, FAT LIE!
LikeLike
I have stated here before that Charters and Vouchers are the ruination of the public school system. In my state Charters are exempt from many educational mandates. We don’t need Charters or Vouchers. Public schools can be extended these exemptions through application by showing need and plans of improvement. Charters are suppose to “encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods”. I have not seen evidence of this. Many districts have their own online cyber schools that can be modeled and shared throughout the state. We don’t need corporate run cyber charters in this state. We are inundated with cyber charter adds and even one radio station which says the “dirt” is brought to you by a cyber charter school. It is exhausting to watch and listen as my tax dollars are being Wasted in this manner. We need to be heard. Our time is now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can America be great when it substitutes privately managed charter schools for its public schools? Does publicly managed schools matter? With over 2.5 million students enrolled in charter schools and a growth rate of 7% a year, there will come a time when “choice” between public and privately managed charter schools will not exist. When neighborhood public school no longer exists, there will be no longer families choice between public and private school in poor neighborhoods; but, only a choice between privately managed schools. Few remaining public schools will most likely be located in wealthier zip codes. Privatization will mean greater economic and racial segregation. This dynamic fits the Trump vision of making America greater again.
LikeLike
If, G-d forbid, this dystopian vision happens, and all schools (particularly those in poorer or lower-middle class areas) become privately-managed charter schools, what are they going to do with the children who are disabled, English language learners, or those who have behavior problems? These are children that would “cost” too much for those privately-managed (but publicly funded) charters to educate.
These students would basically hurt their “bottom line,” so they aren’t going to want them. Now, they can either refuse to admit those kids, or throw them out (using a variety of methods) back into the under-resourced public schools to deal with. What will they do with them when there are no more public schools to take in these kids?
Will they simply be warehoused, with what amounts to guards who give them no appropriate education whatsoever? Will these children have to sit at home? What?
LikeLike
I have no doubts that the racist, reactionary candidates from both mainstream political parties are well aware of everything Carol Burris so eloquently points out. It’s not a lack of information or knowledge regarding the private nature of the charter industry that drives the GOP and Democratic Party to continue misrepresenting these schools as public. Anyone supporting public education should seriously consider that we won’t gain any ground supporting these parties or candidates. We need to look outside of the two party duopoly that has made neoliberalism the only American politics since the Carter administration. Obama’s tripling down on George W. Bush’s horrific education policies should have made this clear enough. To think that Clinton or Trump, both of whom extol the wonders of the segregationist invention of “school choice”, and both of whom call privately managed charters schools “public”, are going to do anything other than make the education landscape substantially worse is to be in denial.
LikeLike
Robert,
I love you but disagree.
Neither candidate is a clear supporter of public schools, but Trump will cause far more destruction than Clinton. On every other issue, Trymp is a disaster and an incipient fascist
LikeLike
Pierre Trudeau is quoted as saying, “Don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.”
LikeLike
Isn’t it important to note that, of the two top candidates for President, one will surely NEVER sit down with union leaders?
LikeLike
And the other will sit down with union leaders who are colluding with her against their own membership. That’s an improvement.
LikeLike
Dienne: help me out here. I don’t disagree with your point above — but why is it that union members (who vote) cannot vote in different (and better) leadership? Or threaten to leave the union and form a new one (or join a different one)? That this is not happening tells me there may be a reason — but I cannot figure out what it is.
LikeLike
Though it’ s become common parlance—on June 14th the LA Times informed the public: “Charters are independently operated, free public schools.” The California Department of Education makes no bones about it: “A charter school is a public school.”– -the term “Public Charter School” is an oxymoron
Developed by a PR firm to reframe the way we understand schooling in relationship to “public” and to democracy, we must contest the term where ever we encounter it.
We must reiterate what may be obvious to most of us but should be made obvious to all: public institutions—schools, libraries, zoos—are, at least in theory, funded by taxes from all the people in its jurisdiction—local, state and national—and are held accountable to and by those people through that fundamental process we in a democracy call voting.
Most public schools are accountable to an elected school board made up of community members. Residents of that community have the right to be present at Board meetings, weigh in on votes and debates, and access public financial documents.
Charter schools are run by executive boards, committees or corporations whose members often live outside the community in which they are located and are not accountable to parents or the taxpayers/community members who fund them.
If you don’t like what your traditional public school is doing, you can make your voice heard by addressing administrators, voting for new leadership or taking a leadership role yourself. If you don’t like what your child’s charter school is doing and you express yourself, you may be asked to leave. There is no democratic mechanism for spearheading policy change.
Public institutions are the motors of democracy. Their purpose is to promote and preserve the fundamental values of a democratic society: liberty, equality and the public welfare or common good.
Public schools recognize that the welfare of everyone’s children and grandchildren is intimately linked to the welfare of all. Through support and oversight by the community, public schooling is intended to serve the common good and preserve fundamental qualities that sustain democracy beyond getting students “college and career ready.” If public schools have not always lived up to their promise then it is necessary to redouble our efforts to have them do so, not to abandon them or to promise benefits to an exclusive few through charters.
Charter schools contribute to the demise of public schools. Its surprising how many otherwise progressive people fail to understand that charter schools compete with private schools for money and space and therefore do not promote equality. When students leave public schools for charter schools they take their per pupil expenditures –which in California averaged $9,794 last year–with them, leaving public schools with less revenue but the same overhead. The federal government also spends millions on charters at the expense of public schools. Taxpayers paid one consulting firm nearly $10 million to the U.S. Department of Education Charter Schools. That’s $10 million fewer federal dollars for public schools.
The law forbids local districts, which in California are the main authorizers for new charters, from taking into account the potentially crippling impact of new charters on district financing when considering approving new schools. So even if you find an excellent charter to send your own child to, you are reducing the chances of every student remaining in the public school having their own excellent education.
Charter schools’ claim they enhance democracy is disingenuous. The highly touted freedom of individual parents to choose their child’s school comes at the heavy price of reducing two other essential functions of democracy: providing for the general welfare of a society that requires well funded public schools and insuring equal opportunity for all children. Competing with traditional public schools for space and funding reduces the quality of the remaining public schools, and ignores patterns of clear advantage for the children of savvy parents, thus assuring that some children will be better schooled than others.
Being publicly funded, charters cannot be considered private. However, their private governance and their marginalization of fundamental democratic values disqualifies them as public.
The most accurate label for charters is “Publicly–funded private schools.” Insist upon using that term. Don’t let them abscond with our language. There is no such thing as a public charter school. We should point this out at every opportunity. Take our language back!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ann,
I have used the term “privately managed schools” for charters. Your term “publicly-funded private schools” may be better.
They are private contractors, like Boeing, which relies on public funding
LikeLike
No other industry affixes “government-funded” to its business sector description.
Charter schools are a business contractor that meets contractual specifications. Public schools, parks, libraries are vastly different.
LikeLike
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that charter schools are not public schools because they aren’t governed by publicly-elected school boards. That’s not just common law — it’s common sense.
It’s the ownership and governance of an entity that determines whether of not it’s a public entity, not just the fact that the entity does business with the public.
And charter schools don’t provide the public with the same detailed, public-domain, audited annual financial reports that public schools provide to the public to show how the public’s tax money is being spent.
At the very least, charter schools should be subject to public accountability by being governed by publicly-elected school boards and should provide the public with the same annual financial reports that genuine public schools provide.
Is it legal and constitutional for public tax money to be given to private schools, especially with virtually no public accountability?
LikeLike
The Boston Teachers Union is in the midst of negotiations for a successor contract, and things are not exactly proceeding in an expeditious manner, hardly a surprise in a district with a Broadie supernintendo, a mayorally appointed School Committee, a mayor committed to charters, and a governor whose shilling for his hedge fund charter friends knows no bounds.
On July 14th, Governor Charlie Baker fronted a charter rally, originally planned to be held inside the Great Hall of the State House, which would have violated a prohibition on political rallies inside this public space. Due to a complaint from Save Our Public Schools MA,(http://saveourpublicschoolsma.org/) the last minute shuffle left the group out on the front steps. Here’s an ad with Baker in the rain in front of the usual DFER funded astroturf group on the ballot proposal to allow 12 more charters to open each year in Massachusetts ad infinitum:
This morning’s pro-charter Boston Globe has a story on the BTU negotiations, which contains the following gem:
(http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/07/25/contract-talks-between-boston-teachers-union-hit-rocky-patch/nNb1bVhvLjzf5xKQ3mNdQP/story.html#comments)
” ‘Expansion of charter seats in Boston may affect the city’s ability to continue to financially support the School Department as it has, which is why school officials are pushing for reforms that support teacher quality and time on learning,’ Tyler said. ‘This would require the teachers’ union to recognize that reform is their friend and that a reform contract would allow the school system to be more competitive with charter schools.’ ” (The Tyler referenced here is Sam Tyler, succinctly profiled by Jennifer Berkshire, during the last round of BTU negotiations. http://edushyster.com/meet-the-boston-municipal-research-bureau/)
So there we have it. If anyone is still uncertain of how charters are connected to union busting, Tyler has spelled it out in stark terms.
Here are some of the other “reforms” Broad supernintendo Chang has on the negotiation table:
From http://btu.org/ebulletin/btu-ebulletin-44/
“Teachers may be excessed from a school without regard to their seniority, but based on their ‘performance.’ Performance will be defined by performance evaluation ratings, which can include Student Impact Ratings as determined by District Determined Measures (DDMs).
Excessed teachers who are proficient or better and who don’t earn a position by the first day of school will be placed in a positon of Suitable Professional Capacity (SPC). Those placed in SPC will retain salary and benefits for a finite length of time. If unsuccessful in finding a position, the person serving in an SPC position will be fired.
The length of time in an SPC position will depend on one’s service years, and whether or not the teacher is from a school that has been closed. (As most know, the city last year commissioned the McKinsey Report, which claims there are 39,000 surplus seats in the BPS and calls for the potential closing of 30 to 50 schools.)
Teachers with a less-than-proficient rating on their last evaluation who are not hired by August 31 will be fired immediately.
Teachers fired, regardless of rating, shall not have a right of recall to any teaching position.
On teacher staffing: Those who take approved leaves, including maternity leaves, for a duration of 6 months or longer will not have an attachment right to their old building & assignment. Any such person without a position on the first day of school shall become an SPC.
Within a school, administrators ‘can reassign teachers to any teaching position … for which they are qualified.’
On length of teacher work day: Teachers will be expected to work a ‘professional day required to perform their required duties.’ Translated, that means that the length of the school day will be solely at the call of your administrator — as will any additional compensation.”
So:
VAM (by any other name)
No seniority.
If your position disappears due to budget cuts, you must “earn” a position in another school within the system in which you may have worked for 20 years or you get to be a sub.
Less than “proficient” means you get fired, no due process, and regardless of rating if you’re fired, you have no right of recall.
If you take leave to have a child or to undergo cancer treatments or to recover from a stroke, you have no right to your old position, meaning you can end up in the SPC pool and be fired. (Many of these leaves are unpaid, such as maternity.)
You’ll work as many hours as told, whenever you’re told.
And to supplant those veterans there’s this:
http://www.teachboston.org/become-a-teacher/bps-teaching-fellowship/
brought to us by the foundation/vendor Boston Plan for Excellence
Click to access bostonnarr.pdf
The plan is to use these foundations’ charters as a training ground for new teachers, then infuse those newly minted folks across the entire school system. It’s a means to change the culture of the very well educated, experienced teaching force we have and simultaneaously get rid of those troublesome, lazy, traditionally trained veterans.
LikeLike
Forgot to add that our charter-lovin’ Mayor Marty Walsh gave a speech at the DNC, touting the labor movement. Irony missed.
http://2016.democratic-convention.org/?speech=Marty-Walsh
LikeLike
The charter industry has a concept of education as “seats” to be filled, and if there are insuffient “high quality seats” in an urban area, then the charter operators will put that point into a sales pitch to seek charter expansions. For the charter industry, test scores define “quality” along with the data processed through greatschools.org…where a ten point scale is constructed to rate schools based on test scores, bell curve at work, leaving only the top 10% of schools in a state with a high rating. A variant of this pitch focussed on “high quality seats” convinced some CEOs organized as an “accelerator of high quality schools” that a new charter chain was just what the city needs.
LikeLike
Dienne, you make an excellent point in your 3:21 PM comment about union leadership.
JEM–good question, & the answers are long (for a start, I strongly recommend that you read pertinent posts in the blogs NYC Educator & Fred Klonsky’s Blog. The short answer that I can give is the same reason that Bernie didn’t become the Dem. nominee–the systems are rigged in favor of “insiders.” For example, the rank-&-file of both teachers unions–AFT & NEA were NEVER once polled, surveyed or asked to vote on as to who they (the members) would like to see receive the union’s endorsement.
At least four NEA affiliates (Massachusetts Ed. Assn.–Barbara Madeloni {sp.-?}–who Diane has named an Education Hero–made a public statement against the very early HRC endorsement, as did the New Jersey Ed. Assn. & 2 others–Rhode Island & New Hampshire–? Not sure, but you can Google numerous articles in reference to this.)
Also, CORE–the Chicago Teachers Union group that swept President Karen Lewis into power–voted to Bernie Sanders several months after the AFT HRC endorsement.
LikeLike
From the DNC … http://www.politico.com/states/massachusetts/story/2016/07/charter-supporters-make-the-case-to-delegation-104288
LikeLike